Civ goes hexagonal

[oscar]

Lawl except that battle will probably (in game time) take 15 years to resolve.

 

[ever]

THE GAME ISN'T REALISTIC YOU MORON!!!!!!!

 

[MetalCraze]

Fuck a stack limit. What's the fetish with stacks? What benefits do they provide other than allowing you to be lazy and make a stack of units that can counter any threat?

Any threat? If stacks were to be limited they wouldn't conquer any threat.
But I guess it's much more fun to spam every hex with a single unit which will eventually happen.

Stacks kill strategy.

Badly implemented features kill strategy.

Doesn't fit a Civ game? It fits it perfectly.

But I guess you'd prefer this:

You are the new shit.

Shit man I imagine you can do manoeuvres like that in Civ, with every hex being 100 m so you won't have to go around enemy forces through the neighboring continent durrrr

 

[poocolator]

^
And it wouldn't take 15 years.

 

[OSK]

Any threat? If stacks were to be limited they wouldn't conquer any threat.

When you made stacks in Civ 4, you didn't just do it with one type of unit. You put in spearmen to deal with calvary, you put in axemen to deal with melee and you put in chariots to deal with axemen. Now you have to make actual formations or you'll lose.

But I guess it's much more fun to spam every hex with a single unit which will eventually happen.

Did you even read any of the previews? You won't be able to build as many units as you used to. Units take longer to build, they have upkeep costs and they are limited in number by your supplies.

Badly implemented features kill strategy.

I agree. Badly implemented features like stacks.

Now that you finished your damage control, how about an actual advantage of stacks?

Shit man I imagine you can do manoeuvres like that in Civ, with every hex being 100 m so you won't have to go around enemy forces through the neighboring continent durrrr

What?

 

[MetalCraze]

When you made stacks in Civ 4, you didn't just do it with one type of unit. You put in spearmen to deal with calvary, you put in axemen to deal with melee and you put in chariots to deal with axemen. Now you have to make actual formations or you'll lose.

Same shit, less comfortable, takes more space, more tedious to get units properly into place as your units can't travel through each other's position I imagine - 100 sq. km simply won't allow you army to do that.

Did you even read any of the previews? You won't be able to build as many units as you used to. Units take longer to build, they have upkeep costs and they are limited in number by your supplies.

They were limited in previous Civs too. If you didn't have enough supplies in the city to handle units they would be automatically disbanded. I imagine each city will let you to produce more than just 4-5 units.

I agree. Badly implemented features like stacks.

Yes - so implement them correctly.

Now that you finished your damage control, how about an actual advantage of stacks?

Stacks are like an army. Army doesn't consist of a single type of unit per 100 sq. km. With properly implemented limited stacks it will be easier to move them around, create more specialized stacks (e.g. artillery protected by melee units in Middle Ages era f.e.). Also when it comes to cities it will be pretty stupid if the whole city will be protected by a single archer squad.
But alas to balance this stuff will take oh so much effort. Let's just clone PG gameplay with rock-paper-scissors balance.

What?

Unless the battlefield will be much wider and in more realistic proportions this shit won't work. In PG they clone you have a battlefield of realistic proportions it won't take years (or hundreds of years) to manouever your units around your enemy which considering Civ5's proportions may involve going through another continent.

 

[Cassidy]

Most, if not all Paradox Games allow stacks and have their own mechanisms to balance them. Having more than one unit per province/hex/square/whatever gives extra strategic opportunities if well implemented, and besides, Civilization is a 4x game, not a tactical wargame. It's supposed to run over a much larger scale.

And finally, I hope that such attempt to port a 4x game to consoles flops or proves itself far less profitable than selling another crappy shooter with health regen and cover system.

 

[ever]

lol I like how autistic Skyway doesn't understand a game unless each in game unit of measurement can be converted to a real life measurement and do it all via a consistent scale.

Probably Chess gives him headaches because he can't figure out if each square is meant to represents 5km or 6km, and how many men there are exactly in one pawn.

Its a game. If there's tactics involved and the tactics work and they have some semblence to what people expect irl its fine.

Once again Civ never was and never will be a realistic game.

And why on earth are you complaining that now units have to be positioned, you know positioning adds tactical depth by default, its only really screwy if the AI can't take advantage of it.

 

[OSK]

Same shit, less comfortable, takes more space, more tedious to get units properly into place as your units can't travel through each other's position I imagine - 100 sq. km simply won't allow you army to do that.

Units have a minimum movement of 2 hexes, and units can swap places. More tedious? This coming from someone who cringes at the words streamlined, accessible, and simpler. Why dumb things down when you can have more tactical depth?

They were limited in previous Civs too. If you didn't have enough supplies in the city to handle units they would be automatically disbanded. I imagine each city will let you to produce more than just 4-5 units.

They've explicitly said that there won't be as many units on the map. I'm sure they're well aware of the dangers of overcrowding the map with units.

Stacks are like an army. Army doesn't consist of a single type of unit per 100 sq. km. With properly implemented limited stacks it will be easier to move them around, create more specialized stacks (e.g. artillery protected by melee units in Middle Ages era f.e.). Also when it comes to cities it will be pretty stupid if the whole city will be protected by a single archer squad.
But alas to balance this stuff will take oh so much effort. Let's just clone PG gameplay with rock-paper-scissors balance.

Armies tended to keep the infantry in the front, archers in the back and cavalry on the flanks. You wouldn't just mix them all up and toss them at the enemy. And why create specialized stacks, when you could just have a single unit represent that stack? Why the unnecessary tediousness?

And cities defend themselves now, but you can station a single unit for extra strength.

Hannibal would fail at Civ 4.

Unless the battlefield will be much wider and in more realistic proportions this shit won't work. In PG they clone you have a battlefield of realistic proportions it won't take years (or hundreds of years) to manouever your units around your enemy which considering Civ5's proportions may involve going through another continent.

What the fuck is with you and the scale? Do you have assburgers? What does it matter? In Civ 4 it takes an entire fucking century to move your warrior from one square to the next in the beginning of the game. Did you uninstall the game after the first turn? Get the fuck over the years and the 100 sq km bullshit. The series has never had proper scale. It doesn't affect the gameplay in anyway.

 

[ever]

OH GOD OH NO OH LAWWWWD I HAD TO MOVE MY INFANTRY ONE HEX TO THE RIGHT AND THEN ONE TO THE TOP LEFT TO GET THEM INFRONT OF MY CANNONS OH GAWWWWD THATS LIKE 500KM AND IT TOOK 15 YEARS OH NO OH LAWWWD SO UNRELASITIC OOOHHHHHHHHH

*autistic head asplode*

 

[OSK]

Most, if not all Paradox Games allow stacks and have their own mechanisms to balance them. Having more than one unit per province/hex/square/whatever gives extra strategic opportunities if well implemented

What kind of strategic options are there with stacks in Paradox games? I've honestly never played one.

and besides, Civilization is a 4x game, not a tactical wargame. It's supposed to run over a much larger scale

The game is whatever the creators make it. If the combat in most 4x games is shitty, why not spice things up? Just because it wouldn't fit in some specific definition?

I imagine the combat being the same as generals sitting around a table in a war room pushing models around. It works for me.

And finally, I hope that such attempt to port a 4x game to consoles flops or proves itself far less profitable than selling another crappy shooter with health regen and cover system.

Civ Revolution did pretty well, I believe.

OH GOD OH NO OH LAWWWWD I HAD TO MOVE MY INFANTRY ONE HEX TO THE RIGHT AND THEN ONE TO THE TOP LEFT TO GET THEM INFRONT OF MY CANNONS OH GAWWWWD THATS LIKE 500KM AND IT TOOK 15 YEARS OH NO OH LAWWWD SO UNRELASITIC OOOHHHHHHHHH

*autistic head asplode*

This.

 

[Cassidy]

What kind of strategic options are there with stacks in Paradox games? I've honestly never played one.

In Hearts of Iron 2, you have to assign leaders from a limited pool to "stacks" or lone divisions. Major Generals can command only one unit per province(equivalent of hex/whatever in Hearts of Iron 2), while Lt. Generals can command 3 units, Generals 9 and Field Marshalls 12, except when there is a special unit called "HQ" commanded by at least a General in an adjacent province, which doubles the number of units each leader can command.

It's possible to stack several units in the same province, though, but if you attack with more than 24 units in the same province, provided there is a Field Marshall and an adjacent HQ unit nearby, all units past the first 24 will have crippling penalties due to the lack of proper organization due to numbers. Promoting leaders so they can control more units cut off their "Skill level" and higher ranked leaders gain experience slowly compared to lower ranked ones like Mj. General.

Because of the fact the game simulates supply lines(fortunately they are totally abstracted and thus don't require any form of micromanagement), using superstacks is dangerous because they can be cut off and encircled. When a province loses all its links to friendly territory and is surrounded by provinces occupied by the enemies, all divisions in it will not longer get supplies, lose organization(equivalent to "morale" - if they lose all of it they are instantly defeated) and Strength(the equivalent of Hitpoints) daily and given enough time. will starve to death.

Things like having actual supply lines that can be cut off could enrich Civilization if properly implemented in it. The only one unit per hex would make encirclements far more viable no matter how big the map is, but I suppose that is too complex for the console audience, as would be to have the maximum amount of units able to attack orderly determined by assigned leaders.

 

[MetalCraze]

Units have a minimum movement of 2 hexes, and units can swap places.

Doesn't change a thing. What if you will need to put your unit two hexes to the front but there are already two of your units standing in its way? Spend an additional move to do what you could do in one move previously?

More tedious? This coming from someone who cringes at the words streamlined, accessible, and simpler. Why dumb things down when you can have more tactical depth?

The point is it doesn't give any tactical depth in a global scale game like Civ5. And making it comfortable doesn't mean streamlining or dumbing down. Or HoI is a dumbed down shit too? Because it uses limited stacks and does so in a right way - I'd prefer they go that way.

What the fuck is with you and the scale? Do you have assburgers? What does it matter? In Civ 4 it takes an entire fucking century to move your warrior from one square to the next in the beginning of the game. Did you uninstall the game after the first turn? Get the fuck over the years and the 100 sq km bullshit. The series has never had proper scale. It doesn't affect the gameplay in anyway.

Except now it will.

In Panzer General when you have a battle time stops, nothing happens on the global scale, and you can use woods as a cover for all your army due to scale. But in Civ5 time doesn't stop - considering that now instead of spending a century to move a unit you will spend centuries or even millenias to move them into a proper formation and keeping that formation - and by the time you will get to an enemy town trying to move your small army through a narrow passage like Mexico-sized one and after each battle spending turns to get back units into formation again - chances are the enemy will greet your swordsman with M1A2s. Unless they will slow down time so hard - but it will make non-combat stuff like research and town development very dull, long and tedious.
Now add to that that stack vs. stack battle takes one turn. Here it will take much more which again unless time will be slowed down will have only a bad effect.

Civ due to its scale isn't fit to be a wargame.

 

[ever]

I'm pretty sure by the two or three turns it takes to move your units through lets say a two hex wide bottleneck your swordsmen won't be made obsolete anymore than when it takes you three turns to move your stack through a two square wide bottleneck in CIV IV, III, II, I, AC.

 

[Dirk Diggler]

FFS skyway.

 

[MetalCraze]

I'm pretty sure by the two or three turns it takes to move your units through lets say a two hex wide bottleneck your swordsmen won't be made obsolete anymore than when it takes you three turns to move your stack through a two square wide bottleneck in CIV IV, III, II, I, AC.

I guess reading more than 5 words you want to selectively read is really really hard.

 

[Grunker]

Next up: Is the fact that you have unlimited control over almost everything in Civ too unrealistic? Joining us will be Skyway who argues you should have no control over the game - just like a real world leader wouldn't.

OldSkoolKamikaze says: "How can a world leader be 4000 years old? It makes no sense!"

 

[poocolator]

I just assumed the transition from ancient styles of combat with 100,000 men stuck in 5km-squared to modern styles, with 100,000 spread across a front 100 miles across. In that interpretation, it doesn't matter much to change the combat mechanics in a game like Civ4 form ancient to modern style.

 

[OSK]

snip

That sounds much better than what the Civ games have done with stacks, but it also sounds more abstracted and at a higher strategy level than the Civ series functions at. I've never played the game, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm imagining a more complex version of Risk.

I'll admit to being completely biased here, but I prefer the direction Civ V is going. I tend to play and prefer more squad-level tactics games. All the ones I've ever played have been on the scale of small, unconnected skirmishes. Tactical combat in a larger, persistent world that I'm helping to build is something I've always been hoping for.

but I suppose that is too complex for the console audience

Dude, this game isn't going to be on consoles.

Doesn't change a thing. What if you will need to put your unit two hexes to the front but there are already two of your units standing in its way? Spend an additional move to do what you could do in one move previously?

What? Are you assuming you won't be able to move past friendly units? Why the fuck do you think they are implementing a 2-hex move minimum? Do you just imagine the worst possible scenario and convince yourself it's true? This isn't an issue.

The point is it doesn't give any tactical depth in a global scale game like Civ5. And making it comfortable doesn't mean streamlining or dumbing down. Or HoI is a dumbed down shit too? Because it uses limited stacks and does so in a right way - I'd prefer they go that way.

You're complaining that the new combat mechanics don't fit a game like Civ, then you try to shoehorn in mechanics of a grand strategy game into a 4x game? You're just complaining that they're going a lower level rather than a higher level. Here, I think you're just being biased like me.

If you don't believe they are different types of games compare these two lists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology ... ideo_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology ... ideo_games

Here it will take much more which again unless time will be slowed down will have only a bad effect.

The problem you're describing is the same shit that occurs to the early gunpowder units in Civ 4: the units are quickly made obsolete by new technologies. This is something that has always plagued the series in some way. It's why I always play Marathon. But you need to remember, Civ 5 won't be Civ 4 with one unit per hex. It's an entirely new game, not an expansion pack. The pacing and scale are things that are going to have to be completely re-done. Taking these news tidbits and cramming them into the mechanics of Civ 4 doesn't work.

 

[Destroid]

Tactical combat in a larger, persistent world that I'm helping to build is something I've always been hoping for.

Never played xcom?

 

[Trojan_generic]

Sid blabbers about the psychology of the new Civs (Civ 5 + Civ Facebook Retard Edition) and games in general here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/gdc-2010-borderlands,2580-4.html

Games also create what Meier called the Winner Paradox--you’ll win in PC games much more often than you win in real life. He went on to discuss the “Unholy Alliance,” which he described as an unstated agreement between players and game designers. The designer’s job is to make the player feel like he’s good at something, create a suspension of disbelief and create moral clarity, so that beating an opponent doesn’t make you feel like a baby killer.

Perhaps the funniest anecdote he shared about how much psychology affects gameplay was his discussion of combat odds in Civilization Revolution. When a player faces an opponent, and has 3:1 odds, Meier noted. That means the player should lose one out of four times. But if players lost at 3:1, they were mystified: “I have 3:1 odds! I shouldn’t lose!”

 

[kris]

Perhaps the funniest anecdote he shared about how much psychology affects gameplay was his discussion of combat odds in Civilization Revolution. When a player faces an opponent, and has 3:1 odds, Meier noted. That means the player should lose one out of four times. But if players lost at 3:1, they were mystified: “I have 3:1 odds! I shouldn’t lose!”

Human brain have a problem understanding something that is random and things like this in general.

 

[janjetina]

He should worry less about the highly uncertain conjectures about human psychology of an average human being and more about the psychology of his target audience, which is, I assume, quite different from average human population. If his target audience consists of people like me, who get their endorphin rush by having a multitude of strategic and tactical options to chose from, he will have to consider implementing the features that exist in Alpha Centauri, but lack in the new Civilization games.

Zones of control are the most critical aspect that has to be implemented - I've repeatedly been convinced of that, as I've played Civ IV with Rise of Mankind mod (which represents a significant improvement, with ranged bombardment, fighter engagement, naval bombardment and other tactical options, as well as additions to the tech tree, wonders, etc. and Civ IV shouldn't be played without it, however it lacks zones of control and that is a huge flaw) right after playing Alpha Centauri. With the removal of stacks, and a high significance placed on the battle for the capital cities and the frontlines, zones of control seem indispensable (I really don't see any other way to make it work). Naval warfare (especially naval blockade and sentries, that can be penetraded like cheese in Civ IV) is really crippled without ZOC's.

Extended terraforming, including terrain manipulations is another. A unit designer would be great. The last two options should be designed to reflect historical accuracy - their significance would increase with the passage of time and they would be strongest at modern and future era (making the final gameplay more interesting). Some innovation wouldn't hurt as well. The formula is simple - keep the good features, improve those that have flaws and add something new, yet almost all developers seem to do the opposite - removing features.

Another thing he should worry about is making a relatively challenging AI, and accomplishing it in the right way, i.e. without cheating. Having two difficulty settings differ by e.g. the AI research speed is retarded. Research speed, building speed, support costs etc. should be governed by the rules that are the same for the human and the AI players. The variation in difficulty should be accomplished by the variation in strategic and tactical fitness functions of the AI.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

Confirmed civ 5 features

 

[Firewrks]

The designer’s job is to make the player feel like he’s good at something

oh siddy sid sid

Let's hope he's focused hard on Civ Facebook Retard Edition and his influence on Civ 5 is minimal.

And yeah, with the 1 unit per tile thing, zones of control surely have got to make a comeback. I don't see it on that confirmed features list, which is a trifle worrying.